Plan B On The Health Bill: Progressives Should Demand More

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:51:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Brian Beutler:

[T]he House could simply pass the Senate bill unchanged, and Obama could sign reform into law. As recently as last week, a number of high-profile Democrats were saying that would never fly. But many are now suggesting that the House might still pull through, if House members are promised that the deal they agreed to last week will be passed separately--and quickly--through the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.

What is that final deal anyway? We know the deal cut on the excise tax. But what about the rest of it? Will any other improvements survive? Defenders of the process (and persons opposing Coakley) have been arguing that the House and Senate bills are virtually the same. This is simply not true.

More importantly, Progressive House members should use their newly found leverage to demand more. For example, they should demand passage of a public option in exchange for this deal. This is especially true since, as Beutler notes, Blue Dogs and centrists in the House will be very leery about voting for ANY health bill. Progressives in the House may have backed themselves into a maximum leverage situation -- if they know how to use it.

Speaking for me only

< Post Mortems On The Theory Of Change | The Obama Tide Does Not Lift The Dem Boat >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Plan B On The Health Bill: Progressives Should Demand More | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

At this stage of things, I'd be shocked if (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Anne on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:20:23 AM EST

the House "Progressives" could even find their a$$es with both hands, much less leverage their position to get a better bill. Gambling on promises and deals seems to be unnecessarily risky, and accepting of the real possibility that once they pass that Senate bill, that will be the end of it. Charlie Brown will have been punk'd once again.

The desperation is just coming off the administration in waves, and I can't recall a time when good legislation followed from desperate, last-gasp measures - none of which, in the case of health reform, would be undertaken for much beside saving Obama from embarrassment, which is not a good enough reason, in my mind, to ram this thing through.

Obama the lead weight. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by lentinel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:01:36 AM EST

One would have thought that when Obama campaigned for Coakley, he would have made passage of the "healthcare" bill a raison d'être for voting for her.

He didn't.

That's because he knows that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, that the democratic candidate is in such bad shape is that she is carrying the burden of being the standard bearer for this piece of corporate welfare.

Here is a quote from Obama, the orator, campaigning for Coakley. See if you can made any sense out of it. I cannot.

"Now, I've heard about some of the ads that Martha's opponent is running. He's driving his truck around the commonwealth, and he says that he gets you, that he fights for you, that he'll be an independent voice," said Obama. "And I don't know him, he may be a perfectly nice guy. I don't know his record, but I don't know whether he's been fighting for you up until now."

oy.

No Chance We Will Have a Good Bill (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Dan the Man on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:23:07 AM EST

From lambert:

"President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival John McCain. McCain took in $7,758,289, the Center found."

If Obama wishes to run as the media darling again in 2012, he's gonna need lots of money because only with lots of money can you buy lots of media. And the health insurance industry isn't gonna give him that kind of money if a bill people actually like has a real chance of passing. So it doesn't matter what Progressives do at all.


Sounds like he's saying . . . (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by nycstray on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:29:04 AM EST

he doesn't have a freakin' clue who the opponent is . . .


Did Jon Favreau resign? (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:29:00 AM EST

It's Ben Rhodes now (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by jbindc on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:38:58 AM EST

Favreau's boss.

The rhetorical crescendo upon which Obama soared into office worked wonders in the campaign. But for Obama, governing has been less a grand narrative sweep than a grueling incremental push powered by exposition and argument. And especially on the delicate world stage, Obama has turned to Ben Rhodes to make the case.
"There is a specificity you've got to have when you are actually governing and not campaigning," said Sen. Mark Warner, the Virginia Democrat for whom Rhodes briefly worked during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election. "It is very important that the president, as he takes on the thorny issues, to lay out the substance, and I think Ben is the guy to work with him on that."
Rhodes, who wears hats as a foreign policy speechwriter, deputy national security adviser and sometime administration spokesman, is not new to the Obama team. He wrote Obama's statesman-in-training address in Berlin, the nuanced speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, the call for nuclear disarmament in Prague, the Nowruz message signaling engagement with Iran, and the modest, moving eulogy to the slain soldiers of Fort Hood. More recently, he wrote the president's Afghanistan address, acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize in Oslo, and letter to CIA employees following a suicide bombing attack on agents in Khost by a double agent. On Tuesday, Rhodes will be blogging for the White House on national security and foreign policy. Since moving from Favreau's immediate supervision in the speechwriting group in September to become deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, Rhodes has reported to national security adviser James Jones and press secretary Robert Gibbs. The 32-year-old New Yorker's ascent is not a product of any intra-administration maneuvering: Favreau is still Rhodes's pal and remains the principal channeler of Obama's voice. But Rhodes possesses a skill set well matched to the danger-fraught moment. And that moment, which requires more explanation than inspiration, isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Oy (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by nycstray on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:48:50 AM EST

statesman-in-training address

Tonight, on Desperate Housescribes ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Ellie on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:57:39 AM EST

Favreau is still Rhodes's pal and remains the principal channeler of Obama's voice. But Rhodes possesses a skill set well matched to the danger-fraught moment.

Shenanigans ensue.


Calling Edgar Bergen (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by lentinel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 12:43:01 PM EST

So Obama's stirring speeches (dreck) were actually written for him?

Hilarious.


Calling Lentinel: this isn't (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 04:19:48 PM EST

new news.


I know... (none / 0) (#29)
by lentinel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:15:58 PM EST

It's just funny to read about the person who is carefully placing words in Obama's mouth.

It's all so calculated and cautious.
No wonder Obama sounds so unconvincing.
Nothing makes sense.

How must it feel to recite other's words - if being a professional actor is not part of the job description?

Can't politicians speak on their feet anymore?


Isn't Obama basically a mouthpiece (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:20:47 PM EST

for those who got him the job? Pelosi, Dean, Super-Ds, Axelrod, et al.?


: Yes , (none / 0) (#33)
by lentinel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:09:12 AM EST

he is.
But there is an extra twist for me because Obama was heralded partly - or mostly - because of his alleged rhetorical skills. One p.o.s. speech he gave was compared to the Gettysburg address for Christ's sake.

Asinine in Massachusetts (none / 0) (#32)
by norris morris on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:47:37 PM EST

Obama sounds unconvincing and just plain terrible. Another mismanaged affair that Team Obama have missed entirely to understand & control with political foresight and skill.

As a Democrat I haven't seen much political skill coming from the leadership of the party, and this was another pathetic attempt at salvage.

I've been watching desperation.


The best thing progressives could do is take (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Bornagaindem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 04:44:21 PM EST

out the individual mandate. Then watch the insurers scream. At least that way they something to bargain with since that is what all the enablers of Obama think is going to happen someday to "fix" the bill. At least that way progressives will have done something useful.

: Thank you for mentioning that. (none / 0) (#31)
by sleepingdogs on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:32:45 PM EST

Removal of the mandate would make me very satisfied that this is a good beginning toward real reform. As long as that remains, and it was given away for so little in return, I feel betrayed by my representative government.

I dunno (none / 0) (#1)
by lilburro on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:02:50 AM EST

the Progressives in the House have made themselves look silly. And I have been duly informed that the public option is not important.

"if they know how to use it" (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:06:35 AM EST

I think thats right. and a big IF.

a loss COULD end up being a good thing

A loss (none / 0) (#6)
by CoralGables on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:00:52 AM EST

will send the next batch of legislation scurrying towards the middle. If as a progressive you don't like what you see now, don't get your hopes up for the rest of the year if the GOP prevails tomorrow. Through next November it will be a race to the middle for the Dems to stave off the attacks on the lefty liberal socialist label.


that may be true (none / 0) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:08:38 AM EST

but the fact remains that this guy campaigned against health care reform.
they may find themselves in a position of reconciliation or nothing. I do not think, as Krugman says today, that nothing is an option at this point.


: well (none / 0) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:15:17 AM EST

Barney Frank says that Health Care Reform is dead if Brown wins. There might not even be enough votes for recocilliation.

If what I'm reading in the news (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:19:23 AM EST

indicates a wake up moment, it would seem that they got it. They understand how they got here. I don't foresee a scurry to the middle as being the overall affect of this on important issues.


If the Senate bill passes as is, that is IMO (none / 0) (#4)
by MO Blue on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:56:01 AM EST

what we will get. A few minute fixes around the edges are not going to fix this very defective piece of legislation.

The Democratic CW is that once it has passed they will be able to "sell" it to the American people. I personally think that effort will be as effective as Ford's PR campaign to sell the Edsel.

Kudos (none / 0) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:59:43 AM EST

to you BTD for keeping on keeping on but I don't think it can be fixed and these "progressives" have shown that they will cave in a heartbeat.

Somebody must make a (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:16:49 AM EST

write up about you thinking something like this while we are all melting here. Now granted, we are melting because we did not do anything like this to begin with while we dreamed of feeding our hopey changey pony. And if we pass a huge POS health care plan we will still melt all the same. But how can you think to pull something like this BTD? If it worked it could actually be melt control as well as something substantial in the realm of health care reform, but I don't know who you think you are.

The Progressives (none / 0) (#16)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:46:34 AM EST

The progressives believe as all other politicians believe that it isn't the voters, but the money interests that bring them into office. Therefore, the progressives have "negotiated" for exactly what the money interests want.

And just like everyone else, the progressives are shaking in their shoes about losing their healthcare -- because gawd forbid they lose re-election and find themselves in the health insurance market with that horrible bill they're passing.

You see, it's a catch 22 on many levels ;-).

(As you can see, it's time for me to go take macro shots with my new SLR before this politics thing drives me insane.)

I thought that once you had served (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:59:28 AM EST

in Congress you always are covered under the Congressional plan after that. I thought that was a golden parachute of sorts.


: I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:17:23 PM EST

if the retirement kicks in with one term. I'm not sure I wanna know, because I might be tempted to run for Congress ;-). Yes, I think I could beat Dave Reichert ;-).

: Hoping even members of Congress must (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 12:06:50 PM EST

serve a minimum no. of yrs. before getting lifetime health care benefits at our expense.

Is that Plan B (none / 0) (#22)
by itscookin on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:06:23 PM EST

like the "morning after pill"?

The problem with this (none / 0) (#24)
by CST on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:36:21 PM EST

if Coakley loses, we're not losing a blue dog, we're losing a vote that could legitimately help push the senate to the left over a period of time. This would also be a reconciliation vote for any legislation on the left. After Nov, Dems won't have 60, but she would be one to get to 50. I don't know if you get 50 at all if she loses. We shouldn't crow about losing a liberal.

If the Dems win, there should be very little crowing about how they were able to keep a seat that has been reliably blue for decades. This should not have been remotely close.

I still don't think she'll lose, but it could happen.

: That's not a problem (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 04:32:58 PM EST

That's a reality.
But who really wants the Senate bill to pass? Progressives? really?
I am not against the bill, but it is not the be all to me. It is pretty darn crappy.

The compromise bill thats coming into (none / 0) (#27)
by ai002h on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 04:38:36 PM EST

focuse, is substantially better than the Senate bill, so we shouldn't trivialize whether those changes would actually be added on later or not. While it is true that, by in large, the House has given up more than the Senate, they have also won some concessions lately and have had Obama on their side to boot:

1)It looks like Obama has pushed for the compromise to contain the House's national exchange versus the Senate's state based exchanges, which is arguably just as big as a PO in terms of cost control and downward pressure on insurance premiums.

2)Obama has issued support for repealing the anti-trust exemption and there's a good chance for that to be included in the bill, or at least a weaker version of a repeal to be included.

3)This isn't in either bill but Obama and Waxman are trying hard to reduce the 12 year window Biogen companies have before generics become available. This would be a huge victory for consumers and, not surprisingly, something that Phrma and many democrats are fighting hard against.

4)Obama and the House have pushed, successfully, for much better subsidies than what the Senate offers.

5)While the cadillac tax exists in principle, its been improved a lot over the Senate version and is much more palatable to unions.

The reason why I list all these concessions above is so that we understand that if the Senate bill is simply passed in the House without any changes, thats MUCH worse than what we were about to get in the compromise, and that we must demand much much more from our House members to hold the WH and leadership accountable to staying true to the original compromise.